Skip to main content
Log in

Measurement methods for product evaluation

  • Published:
Research in Engineering Design Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Among the many tasks designers must perform, evaluation of product options based on performance criteria is fundamental. Yet I have found that the methods commonly used remain controversial and uncertain among those who apply them. In this paper, I apply mathematical measurement theory to analyze and clarify common design methods. The methods can be analyzed to determine the level of information required and the quality of the answer provided. Most simple, a method using an ordinal scale only arranges options based on a performance objective. More complex, an interval scale also indicates the difference in performance provided. To construct an interval scale, the designer must provide two basic a priori items of information. First, a base-pointdesign is required from which the remaining designs are relatively measured. Second, the deviation of each remaining design is compared from the base point design using a metricdatum design. Given these two datums, any other design can be evaluated numerically. I show that concept selection charts operate with interval scales. After an interval scale, the next more complex scale is a ratio scale, where the objective has a well-defined zero value. I show that QFD methods operate with ratio scales. Of all measurement scales, the most complex are extensively measurable scales. Extensively measurable scales have a well defined base value, metric value and a concatenation operation for adding values. I show that standard optimization methods operate with extensively measurable scales. Finally, it is also possible to make evaluations with non-numeric scales. These may be more convenient, but are no more general.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Y. Akao.Quality Function, Deployment: Integrating Customer Requirements into Product Design. Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  2. M. Asimow.Introduction to Design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  3. E. Bascaran, R. Bannerot and F. Mistree. Hierarchical selection decision support problems in conceptual design.Engineering Optimization, 14: 207–238, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  4. P. Bernays.Axiomatic Set Theory. North-Holland, New York, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  5. P. Biegel and M. Pecht. Design trade-offs made easy.Concurrent Engineering, 1(3): 29–40, May/June 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  6. M. Davis.Computability and Unsolvability. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  7. D. C. Dlesk and J. S. Liebman. Multiple objective engineering optimization.Engineering Optimization, 6: 161–175, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  8. H. Eschenauer, J. Koski and A. Osyczka (eds).Multicriteria Design Optimization. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  9. T. Freiheit and S. S. Rao. A modified game theory approach to multi-objective optimization. In S. S. Rao (ed.),Advances in Design Automation — 1988, volume DE-14, pp. 107–114, New York, September 1988. ASME.

    Google Scholar 

  10. S. French.Decision Theory: An Introduction to the Mathematics of Rationality. Ellis Horwood, Chichester, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  11. J. Hauser and D. Clausing. The house of quality.Harvard Business Review, pp. 63–73, May/June 1988.

  12. B. Hayes.Measuring Customer Satisfaction: Development and Use of Questionnaires. ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee, Wis., 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  13. R. Howard and J. Matheson (eds).The Principles and Applications of Decision Analysis. Strategic Decision Group, Menlo Park, CA, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  14. D. Krantz, R. Luce, P. Suppes and A. Tversky.Foundations of Measurement, vol. I., Academic Press, New York, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  15. E. Marsh, A. Slocum and K. Otto. Hierarchical decision making in mechanical design. Engineering Design Laboratory Technical Report 93-6, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass., 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  16. F. Mistreeet al. Fuzzy compromise: An effective way to solve hierarchical design problems.Structural Optimization, 4: 115–120, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  17. D. Nicklaus, S. Tong and C. Russo. Engineous: A knowledge directed computer aided design shell.Proceedings of the Third IEEE Conference on A1 Applications, February 1987.

  18. K. N. Otto and E. K. Antonsson. Trade-Off Strategies in Engineering Design.Research in Engineering Design, 3(2): 87–104, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  19. K. N. Otto and E. K. Antonsson. Modeling imprecision for product design. InProceedings of the 1994 FUZZ-IEEE Conference, pages 340–251. Orlando, FL, June 1994. IEEE.

  20. K. N. Otto, A. D. Lewis and E. K. Antonsson. Determining optimal preference points with dependent variables.Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 60(1): 19–24, November 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  21. P. Papalambros and D. Wilde.Principles of Optimal Design. Cambridge University Press, New York, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  22. S. Pugh.Total Design. Addison-Wesley, New York, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  23. R. Putrus. Non-traditional approach in justifying computer integrated manufacturing systems. InAutofact '89 Conference Proceedings, pp. 8.1–8.26, Detroit, Mich., October 1989. SME.

  24. H. Raiffa and R. Keeney.Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. Wiley, New York, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  25. D. Rosen and J. Dixon. A methodology for conversions of feature-based representations. In L. Stauffer (ed.),Proceedings of the ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference, pp. 45–51, Miami, 1991. ASME.

  26. T. Saaty.The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  27. J. N. Siddall.Analytical Decision Making in Engineering Design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  28. H. Simon.The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 2nd edn, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  29. R. Steuer.Multiple Criteria Optimization: Theory, Computation, and Application. Wiley, New York, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  30. D. Thurston. A formal method for subjective design evaluation with multiple attributes.Research in Engineering Design, 3(2): 105–122, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  31. D. G. Ullman.The Mechanical Design Process. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  32. K. Ulrich and S. Eppinger,Product Design and Development. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  33. S. Vadde, R. Krishnamachi, F. Mistree and J. Allen. The bayesian compromise descision support problem for hierarchical design involving uncertainty. In G. Gabriele, editor,Advances in Design Automation, pp. 209–217. ASME, 1991. Vol. DE-32-1.

  34. A. C. Ward and W. P. Seering. Extending the constraint propagation of intervals.Artificial Intelligence in Engineering Design and Manufacturing, 4(1): 47–51, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kevin N. Otto.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Otto, K.N. Measurement methods for product evaluation. Research in Engineering Design 7, 86–101 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01606904

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01606904

Keywords

Navigation